Renegotiating Family-School Relationships Among Indigenous Peoples in Southern Ontario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Academic success in public schools is facilitated by strong bonds between families and schools, including a shared sense of purpose and mutual trust and understanding (Lareau, 1987, 2000, 2002, 2011; Lareau and Weininger, 2003; Fan, 2001; Barnard, 2004; Sheldon and Epstein, 2005; Englund, Luckner, Whaley, and Egeland, 2004). However, for Indigenous peoples these relationships are often broken, undermined by the legacy of residential schooling and assimilative educational practices, as well as by structural barriers to participation. This thesis argues that the examination of family-school relationships is crucial to understanding educational achievement gaps between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Canadians. Using social and cultural capital theory this thesis examines the dynamics of educational inequality associated with Indigenous family-school relationships to understand family and school-based mechanisms that are seen to limit or encourage Indigenous student achievement. Drawing on interviews with 218 Indigenous (mainly Haudenosaunee, Anishinaabe, and Métis) and non-Indigenous parents and educators, this research asks two questions. First, what encourages or limits meaningful home-school connections between Indigenous peoples and schools in southern Ontario? Second, how are these connections seen to influence educational achievement among Indigenous students? This thesis will consider how, potentially, legacies of discriminatory educational practices and social class may be seen as contributing to differences between Indigenous and non-Indigenous family-school relationships, as well as differences in educational experiences and outcomes.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".